[Bug 471829] Review Request: log4cxx - Log4cxx - a port to C++ of the Log4j project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471829
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 02:47:44 EDT
---
Fails to build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=954051
By the way as you are already sponsored, you can check if your package
actually builds using koji as below:
$ koji build --scratch
where can be dist-f11, dist-f{10,9,8}-updates-candidate and so on.
If the build is successful, the built binary rpms and some logs are
saved (about one week) on
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch//task_/ .
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469470] Review Request: mz - A fast versatile packet generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469470 --- Comment #18 from vivek shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 02:41:25 EDT --- I am currently considering of changing the package name to mausezahn and all associated files like manpages. Since upstream is not keen to change the package name which I do not see as happening in near future, I think the best foot forward would be to rename the package on our side and push it into Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473077] [RFE] Add package Equalizer - Parallel Rendering Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473077 --- Comment #2 from Stefan Eilemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 02:39:37 EDT --- Yes, of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473205] Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473205
--- Comment #2 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 02:23:39 EDT
---
A few things that need to be fixed:
* This is a GUI app so:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Desktop_files
* You need to have the requires in there, wont run with out the X stuff
* Your build root looks odd should be:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* Just remove #%%configure
And remember to put a change log entry and +1 the release when you submit the
new spec and SRPM
Also if you want I can co-maintain this when you get it approved. Glad I was
able to help you though this one, the first always seems to take forever to
write.
You will still need to wait for a sponsor to come by and do the full review for
you. In the meantime you will need to package at least one more package and do
a review or two, they will not just sponsor you for one package. Feel free to
pull something off the wish list
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList if you do not have
anything in mind.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206134] Review Request: guiloader-c++ - C++ Binding to GuiLoader Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=206134 --- Comment #6 from Denis Leroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 02:23:27 EDT --- Right, crow/gideon was abandoned by upstream before it was completed. It was abandoned after the author went on a insulting spree on the gnome mailing list, then later apologized. A very weird story all in all. There have been some sporadic updates since then, but the upstream website still claims the project is "no longer under active development". I've just released ownership of both guiloader's in packagedb. Feel free to reclaim them and submit a new review if you're interested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473222] New: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-File - File storage backend for session data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-File - File storage backend for session data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473222 Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-File - File storage backend for session data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-File.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-File-0.13-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Catalyst::Plugin::Session::Store::File is an easy to use storage plugin for Catalyst that uses an simple file to act as a shared memory interprocess cache. It is based on Cache::FileCache. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: core - |jeuclid-core - MathML |MathML rendering solution |rendering solution | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: core - |Review Request: jeuclid - |MathML rendering solution |MathML rendering solution -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #14 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 02:07:16 EDT --- sorry the new spec is Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid.spec per the naming scheme -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #13 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 02:04:45 EDT --- I have changed it to the correct naming scheme. I am only going to package the core package as that is all that is needed right now, the others modules can be added later, but will require a lot of patching on the build and working with upstream to get around some font issues. Core uses ant while the rest uses mvn which adds another layer to the complexity as well. I was able to use build-jar-repository to work with there build.xml file so that patch has been removed. The other patch has to stay for FreeHep, the patch is right out of the readme for how to disable FreeHep. If someone wants to package FreeHep, then it can be added, but it is not really necessary. Hopefully this is the last bit: Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core.spec SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core-3.1.3-6.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461077] Review Request: nxtvepg - A nexTView EPG decoder and browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461077 --- Comment #26 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 01:59:38 EDT --- Thanks for the explanation for the situation on this package. >From your explanation the license fix is not needed. (But the license tag on the spec file needs fixing, it should be "License: GPLv2 and GPLv3+". Would you fix that? I will check the other issues on your srpm (if any) later, however as currently I am on semi- vacation and the response from me may be less frequent.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473218] New: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl - Log::Log4perl logging for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl - Log::Log4perl logging for Catalyst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473218 Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl - Log::Log4perl logging for Catalyst Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl-1.00-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This module provides a Catalyst::Log implementation that uses Log::Log4perl as the underlying log mechanism. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462254] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session-Store-FastMmap - FastMmap session storage backend
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462254 Iain Arnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471429] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Engine-Apache - Catalyst Apache Engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471429 Iain Arnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473215] New: Review Request: perl-HTML-FormFu - HTML Form Creation, Rendering and Validation Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-FormFu - HTML Form Creation, Rendering and Validation Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473215 Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-FormFu - HTML Form Creation, Rendering and Validation Framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-HTML-FormFu.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-HTML-FormFu-0.03005-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: HTML::FormFu is a HTML form framework which aims to be as easy as possible to use for basic web forms, but with the power and flexibility to do anything else you might want to do (as long as it involves forms). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Lucian Langa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 00:58:45 EDT --- Thanks for sorting this out. The description in pkgdb still points to old package. I am going to close this review as APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |g) | --- Comment #27 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:34:15 EDT --- If someone was to resurrect it since its not been in fedora for as long as it has been out it would need a new review. At which point it could be named bdb-edb or db4-edb or something else. the harder part is that the binaries will need renaming also. since im assuming both would provide /usr/bin/edb the same is true of any upstream projects that have clashing names. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449869] Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449869 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:31:58 EDT --- tasque-0.1.7-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tasque-0.1.7-3.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #26 from manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:30:24 EDT --- And in any case, IF the new application retains the "edb" name, the description from https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/edb must be fixed, as currently it references the older application. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #25 from manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:27:23 EDT --- Indeed, I have not noticed the "orphan" status. For the record, I am fine with the current situation. But for the sake of the discussion, let's presume I want to resurrect the old program. Now what ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #12 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:25:57 EDT --- I will package the other modules tonight as part of this so it will fit the naming correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470173] Review Request: m4ri - Linear Algebra over F_2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470173 --- Comment #19 from Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:18:50 EDT --- What question? The library versioning issue? Is the evidence provided by Conrad and me not enough to prove that it's working fine? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #24 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:18:42 EDT --- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/edb says that its orphaned and its not been in fedora since FC-5 It was not marked as dead in cvs but has not had a branch which means it did not exist in the release. sure someone updating from FC-5 may be surprised. I still think that it will be ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:18:15 EDT --- Ben, you should open a ticket for your issue as it is not relevant to this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470173] Review Request: m4ri - Linear Algebra over F_2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470173 Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |) | --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 23:15:39 EDT --- Did I miss a comment from you which answered my question? I was going to set needinfo to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #23 from manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 22:48:41 EDT --- It's a bit confusing to have the same name refer to two completely different applications, depending on which version of the distribution you are. Especially as the older application has not been formally abandoned / orphaned / whatever. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #22 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 22:44:53 EDT --- judging by http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/edb/ the old package has not been in fedora since Fedora Core 5 in which case i think the new package is ok. We can always bring it up with FESCo if people disagree with that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #21 from manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 22:17:25 EDT --- The older edb was not included in fedora since version FC-6. Compare http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/edb/FC-3/edb.spec?revision=1.8&view=markup with http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/edb/devel/edb.spec?view=markup -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||g) --- Comment #20 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:52:04 EDT --- I do not see any rpms with the name edb or anything in fedora providing /usr/bin/edb Lucian can you please give more info on what the conflict is? because i do not see it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum install /usr/bin/edb Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package /usr/bin/edb available. Nothing to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum install /usr/sbin/edb Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package /usr/sbin/edb available. Nothing to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum install edb Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package edb available. Nothing to do -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #11 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:52:38 EDT --- license bug filed: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2352779&group_id=44862&atid=441104 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470173] Review Request: m4ri - Linear Algebra over F_2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470173 Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848
--- Comment #10 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:41:21
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
>
> The project is named "jeuclid". Why is the package named jeuclid-core?
>
> The Java packaging guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java)
> say that you should follow the project's name and provide a symlink if the
> commonly used jar name is different.
>
jeuclid is a larger project that contains more modules. This is the only core
module. Should I package the project in one spec file and have the sub
projects like core in it?
http://jeuclid.sourceforge.net/jeuclid-core/index.html
> - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
>
> Group: Applications/Text
> License: ASL 2.0
>
> The above lines have trailing whitespace at the end.
Fixed
> # this patch points the ant to the correct jars
> Patch0: jeuclid-core-build.patch
>
> You could use build-classpath or build-jar-repository instead of the above
> patch.
Yes and know, the main reason that I patch is that the build.xml file expects
them to be symbolic linked to a lib folder in it that does not exist. It will
not build if this is not there. I though while I was patching that, I might as
well put the links to the jars in the file.
I could do it with build-classpath, but the patch will have to stay for the lib
dir issue. This is not really an upstream issue.
> # this patch removes FreeHep support as per the build README
> Patch1: jeuclid-core-FreeHep.patch
>
> You don't have to say "this patch", it's redundant. What you should say,
> instead, is whether or not the patches have been sent upstream (and if not,
> why).
Took those extra words out. Added that FreeHep was an optional feature and
would not be passed upstream.
>
> - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines .
>
> The following files have no licensing information, please ask upstream to
> provide it (not a blocker).
> $ licensecheck.pl -r . | grep -v Apache
> ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/LayoutTest.java: *No
> copyright* UNKNOWN
> ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/ViewerTest.java: *No
> copyright* UNKNOWN
> ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/ConverterTest.java:
> *No copyright* UNKNOWN
> ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/DOMBuilderTest.java:
> *No copyright* UNKNOWN
>
> The rest seems to be under ASL 2.0, thus OK.
I will file an upstream bug and post.
>
> - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
> as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
> upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
> Guidelines for how to deal with this.
>
> OK:
> ff3690e649bf0ead5fd2a03c732dc1ce jeuclid-parent-3.1.3-src.zip
>
> - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
> create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
> create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
>
> You should use
> %{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
> instead of
> %{_javadir}/*
> in %files section. It'll let you detect stray files if they ever make their
> way
> into buildroot in some future release.
Fixed
Sorry for the intermediate post, we had a mid-air bz collision.
Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core.spec
SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core-3.1.3-5.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472997] Review Request: hunspell-ny - Chichewa hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472997 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:41:34 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #47 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:42:27 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472994] Review Request: hunspell-gv - Manx hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472994 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:38:20 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #19 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:37:20 EDT --- since the package review is - cvs can not be done. please rerequest cvs when the review is sorted out -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472996] Review Request: hunspell-ia - Interlingua hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472996 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:40:54 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472995] Review Request: hunspell-hil - Hiligaynon hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472995 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:38:56 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473180] Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473180
manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:36:04
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[!] Rpmlint output: (see note 1)
source RPM:
lzip.src: W: spelling-error-in-summary integrety integrity
binary RPM:
lzip.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/lzip-1.1/TODO (see note 2)
lzip.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary integrety integrity
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv3+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, conta
ining the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 81e920830239a6769164946e6466ff7386e7ce8e
lzip-1.1.tar.bz2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section o
f Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane:
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English lang
uages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=953814)
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the test passes. (see note 3)
=== Final Notes ===
1. please do not forget to fix the typo in %summary before uploading
2. the TODO file is empty hence useless; I suggest to ditch it
3. there is a check test provided, would be nice to integrate it if possible
*** APPROVED ***
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472683] Review Request: jpcap - Packet capturing library for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472683 Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Version|10 |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206134] Review Request: guiloader-c++ - C++ Binding to GuiLoader Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=206134 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:27:55 EDT --- To Fabian: Denis seemed to have some reason not to build this package (see the content of dead.package in Fedora CVS). As it is already long time since this package is not build, if this package is to be imported into Fedora again a new review request is needed and it must be reviewed newly. If you want to maintain this package please submit a new review request and mark this review request a duplicate of the new one. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848
--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008-11-26 21:17:40 EDT ---
Full review, relevant items only (OK'd items omitted).
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint output clean
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
The project is named "jeuclid". Why is the package named jeuclid-core?
The Java packaging guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java)
say that you should follow the project's name and provide a symlink if the
commonly used jar name is different.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Group: Applications/Text
License: ASL 2.0
The above lines have trailing whitespace at the end.
# this patch points the ant to the correct jars
Patch0: jeuclid-core-build.patch
You could use build-classpath or build-jar-repository instead of the above
patch.
# this patch removes FreeHep support as per the build README
Patch1: jeuclid-core-FreeHep.patch
You don't have to say "this patch", it's redundant. What you should say,
instead, is whether or not the patches have been sent upstream (and if not,
why).
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
The following files have no licensing information, please ask upstream to
provide it (not a blocker).
$ licensecheck.pl -r . | grep -v Apache
./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/LayoutTest.java: *No
copyright* UNKNOWN
./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/ViewerTest.java: *No
copyright* UNKNOWN
./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/ConverterTest.java:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/DOMBuilderTest.java:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
The rest seems to be under ASL 2.0, thus OK.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK:
ff3690e649bf0ead5fd2a03c732dc1ce jeuclid-parent-3.1.3-src.zip
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
You should use
%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
instead of
%{_javadir}/*
in %files section. It'll let you detect stray files if they ever make their way
into buildroot in some future release.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #9 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:18:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > #001 > > one line would do the job : sed -i 's/\r//' NOTICE > > You can't preserve the timestamp that way, so no. That is why I did it that way > > > #002: > > add a -verbose to ant: > > e.g ant -verbose > > Produces copious output indeed. Won't hurt. Added > > > #003: update the url of the source0 > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I looked at that, but it looks like when I tested it, it did a redirect on me. Fixed Now. > > Indeed. > > > #004: visual only: add more spaces between various sets of lines > > :) Done New files Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core.spec SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core-3.1.3-4.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472668] Review Request: perl-Captcha-reCAPTCHA - Perl implementation of the reCAPTCHA API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472668 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461454] Review Request: lordsawar - Turn-based strategy game in a fantasy setting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461454 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:11:36 EDT --- lordsawar-0.1.3-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update lordsawar'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-10466 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472685] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Component-InstancePerContext - Return a new instance a component on each request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472685 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:12:56 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Component-InstancePerContext-0.001001-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update perl-Catalyst-Component-InstancePerContext'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10481 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472666] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Natural - Create machine readable date/time with natural parsing logic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472666 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:13:36 EDT --- perl-DateTime-Format-Natural-0.73-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 448717] Review Request: gnome-rdp - rdesktop front end
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448717 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:12:25 EDT --- gnome-rdp-0.2.3-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468116] Review Request: sugar-analyze - Analysing tool for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468116 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:12:17 EDT --- sugar-analyze-8-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472668] Review Request: perl-Captcha-reCAPTCHA - Perl implementation of the reCAPTCHA API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472668 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:12:09 EDT --- perl-Captcha-reCAPTCHA-0.92-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468116] Review Request: sugar-analyze - Analysing tool for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468116 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472664] Review Request: perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple - Easy to use HTML::TokeParser interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472664 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:12:36 EDT --- perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple-3.15-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472666] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Natural - Create machine readable date/time with natural parsing logic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472666 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472664] Review Request: perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple - Easy to use HTML::TokeParser interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472664 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472668] Review Request: perl-Captcha-reCAPTCHA - Perl implementation of the reCAPTCHA API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472668 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:12:00 EDT --- perl-Captcha-reCAPTCHA-0.92-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469494] Review Request: xlcrack - Recover lost and forgotten passwords from XLS files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469494 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:08:48 EDT --- xlcrack-1.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470140] Review Request: nettee - Network "tee" program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470140 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:09:54 EDT --- nettee-0.1.9-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472685] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Component-InstancePerContext - Return a new instance a component on each request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472685 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:09:17 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Component-InstancePerContext-0.001001-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Catalyst-Component-InstancePerContext'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-10442 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472666] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Natural - Create machine readable date/time with natural parsing logic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472666 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:10:46 EDT --- perl-DateTime-Format-Natural-0.73-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472664] Review Request: perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple - Easy to use HTML::TokeParser interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472664 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:10:10 EDT --- perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple-3.15-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469590 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:09:47 EDT --- cpuid-20060917-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473205] Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473205 Adam Tulinius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473205] New: Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473205 Summary: Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle game Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://antistof.dk/pub/fedora/gplanarity.spec SRPM URL: http://antistof.dk/pub/fedora/gplanarity-svn11496-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: gPlanarity is clone of the flash-game Planarity written by John Tantalo. gPlanarity implements gameplay identical to the original Planarity but adds some UI and game extras around the basic game, such as multiple board generation algorithms,puzzle boards, complete backing state, group select/drag and so on. This website http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/gPlanarity.html contains some screenshots etc. :-) -- This is my first package ever, so i'm also seeking a sponser. Finally I would like to thank comphappy for helping me out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473205] Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473205 --- Comment #1 from Adam Tulinius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 21:05:05 EDT --- The package has also been through koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=953888 -Adam -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 20:36:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > #001 > one line would do the job : sed -i 's/\r//' NOTICE You can't preserve the timestamp that way, so no. > #002: > add a -verbose to ant: > e.g ant -verbose Produces copious output indeed. Won't hurt. > #003: update the url of the source0 > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Indeed. > #004: visual only: add more spaces between various sets of lines :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226187
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #9 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-26 19:53:26 EDT ---
The version of netcat that is in fedora now has a bug where it refuses to
connect to proxies that return "HTTP/1.1 200" messages (it only accepts
("HTTP/1.0 200" as valid). I discovered this bug when attempting to ssh out
through a web proxy using openssh's ProxyCommand directive like this:
ProxyCommand = /usr/bin/nc -X connect -x proxy:8080 %h %p
Looking at the OpenBSD repository it looks like socks.c was patched to fix this
over 2 years ago. Would be nice if this change got pulled down into the Fedora
package.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/nc/socks.c.diff?r1=1.16;r2=1.17;f=h
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470354] Review Request: noip - A dynamic DNS update client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470354 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 19:34:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Updated to 2.1.9. And fixed missing init file patch. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/noip.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/noip-2.1.9-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470792] Review Request: eclipse-shelled - Shell script editor plugin for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470792 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 19:05:10 EDT --- Updated : Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-shelled.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-shelled-1.0.3-3.fc9.src.rpm FIx %%doc handling. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473046] Review Request: miniupnpc - command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473046 --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 18:54:52 EDT --- You bumped the release of the spec file but there is no entry in the %changelog section. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs rpmlint is complaining about several things. rpmlint output [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint miniupnpc* miniupnpc.src:59: E: files-attr-not-set miniupnpc.src:60: E: files-attr-not-set miniupnpc.src:61: E: files-attr-not-set miniupnpc.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 6) miniupnpc.src: E: summary-too-long Library and command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint mini* miniupnpc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libminiupnpc.so miniupnpc.i386: E: summary-too-long Library and command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc miniupnpc.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2 ['1.2-2.fc9', '1.2-2'] miniupnpc.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libminiupnpc.so.3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 Chitlesh GOORAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #6 from Chitlesh GOORAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 18:49:39 EDT --- #001 one line would do the job : sed -i 's/\r//' NOTICE #002: add a -verbose to ant: e.g ant -verbose #003: update the url of the source0 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL #004: visual only: add more spaces between various sets of lines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472676] Review Request: partimage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472676 --- Comment #13 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 18:40:51 EDT --- > > > Not sure. Is this something you're adding on, or functionality of the > > > original > > > code? > > > > I borrowed the idea from Gentoo and Ubuntu. They created this script so > > people > > do not need to have a local account on the server. By what I have read about > > Pam, it can use this scheme. > > > > # partimaged user database > > auth sufficient pam_userdb.so db=/etc/partimaged/passwd > > > > But I always get a "password mismatch". > > I'm not sure I like the security implications of this. This would mean that > if > you run partimage-server on your network, anyone on your network with a Fedora > LiveCD with this installed can dump images on your server. Not really. This script has to be run as root on the server. Therefore, only an administrator can add users. It is like using "pserver" authentication for CVS. But without any protection, you are right. Furthermore, without login enabled (on the server it is just a question of removing --nologin from/etc/sysconfig/patimage), and using the default port (and no firewall), anyone knowing the name of the image can download it. I have downloaded in the past a whole fedora image from a server in another city. It took some time, but worked. > > > > > I added a README.Fedora.html (I chose html, because it has some useful > > links). > > Good idea. But rename to partimage.README.html to avoid use of the word > Fedora > and SRPM clobbering. Done > > Also, for partimaged-certs.cnf, you should mention in the README that this > file > should be customized. Not everyone is in Rio. :) Changed the README. Also, I changed the name of the default city to Smallville. :) (I kept the same releae). Spec: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/SPECS/partimage.spec SRPM: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/src/partimage-0.6.7-3.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206134] Review Request: guiloader-c++ - C++ Binding to GuiLoader Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=206134 Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 18:40:07 EDT --- This packages was never build for Fedora and then it was marked as 'dead'. Project URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/crow-designer/ Current version: 2.12.1 Can you please update the spec file and build it for Fedora? Thanks. P.S. - The license has changed from GPL to MIT. - Devel requirement 'Requires: pkgconfig' is still missing - There are translation (at least in the latest version) 'BuildRequires: gettext' is missing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473184] New: Review Request: clamz - Amazon Downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: clamz - Amazon Downloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473184 Summary: Review Request: clamz - Amazon Downloader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://blackbean.org/review/clamz-1.spec SRPM URL: http://blackbean.org/review/clamz-0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Clamz is a little command-line program to download MP3 files from Amazon.com's music store. It is intended to serve as a substitute for Amazon's official MP3 Downloader, which is not free software (and therefore is only available in binary form for a limited set of platforms.) Clamz can be used to download either individual songs or complete albums that you have purchased from Amazon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473180] New: Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473180 Summary: Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/lzip.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/lzip-1.1-1.tillf8.src.rpm Description: Lzip compresses data using LZMA (Lempel-Ziv-Markov chain-Algorithm). It supports integrity checking using CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check). To archive multiple files, tar can be used with lzip. Please note, that the lzip file format (.lz) is not compatible with the lzma file format (.lzma). Upstream of pam_mount changed to use this to compress their tarballs, therefore I need it to update pam_mount in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473180] Review Request: lzip - LZMA compressor with integrety checking (needed to update pam_mount)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473180 Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 18:19:48 EDT --- Koji scratch build for F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=953814 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462 --- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 18:15:34 EDT --- i have a little problem with consolehelper and need a little help. Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc10.src.rpm i can't integrate consolehelper on this way, i can't get authentication as root. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471041] Review Request: diffpdf - PDF files comparator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471041
Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 17:49:06
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: F9/i386
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i diffpdf-0.3.8-1.fc8.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPMs:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint -i diffpdf*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM upstream: 0eda6f63f85ed454718bf4565a08d9a0
SHA1SUM of package: 0eda6f63f85ed454718bf4565a08d9a0
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[-] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[!] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application. [1]
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: F9/i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
Tested F9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=929672
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[1] The .desktop file is missing.
Please add a .desktop file and I will be happy to approve this package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471041] Review Request: diffpdf - PDF files comparator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471041 Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467641] Review Request: sugar-maze - Maze for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467641 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 16:53:45 EDT --- Bryan, thanks for your check and the hint about the requirement. Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-maze.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-maze-6-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473046] Review Request: miniupnpc - command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473046 --- Comment #7 from Avi Alkalay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 16:19:20 EDT --- Suggestions incorporated into spec. Please recheck http://avi.alkalay.net/software/miniupnpc/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459800] Review Request: python-py - Innovative python library containing py.test, greenlets and other niceties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459800 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Moschny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 16:11:16 EDT --- Problems reported upstream, see https://codespeak.net/issue/py-dev/issue66 and https://codespeak.net/issue/py-dev/issue67 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: tcc - small |Review Request: tinycc - |c compiler that can run c |Tiny C Compiler |scripts | --- Comment #6 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 16:04:45 EDT --- Ok I have changed the summary, you are right that is better. On the topic of the name tinytcc could be the name of the package, but what happens to the libtcc* and tcc*.h files? That *.o pulls the bcheck.o part that give the "compile with built-in memory and bounds checker" option. Remove it and you will get: tcc -b onemore.c tcc: file '/usr/lib/tcc/bcheck.o' not found it is for debug only so that is why I put it in the devel package, is that wrong? a grep check shows nothing like __tcc__ or __tinycc__ in any of the files the executable is /usr/bin/tcc Updated: Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tcc.spec SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tcc-0.9.24-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458054 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 15:30:12 EDT --- RH/Fedora discourages, but does not outright forbid static libraries. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472724] Review Request: xjparse - wrapper for the Xerces XML Schema validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472724 --- Comment #3 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 15:13:09 EDT --- Location of new files Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/xjparse.spec SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/xjparse-1.0-2.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint xjparse.spec ../SRPMS/xjparse-1.0-2.fc9.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/xjparse-1.0-2.fc9.noarch.rpm xjparse.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458054] Review Request: arm4 - Application Response Measurement (ARM) agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458054 Stefan Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #17 from Stefan Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 15:11:36 EDT --- I stumbled over this Review Request and I'm happy to see that the arm4.org ARM is in process to be included into Red Hat distribution. Just a comment about static libraries. I do not think a static library should be build. ARM is designed as a dynamic library which can be linked to an application implicitly by using -larm4 during link time. But the main usage is to dlopen() the libarm4.so. Just like the Apache mod_arm4 does. See section "1.7 Linking to an ARM Implementation" of the standard documents for ARM 4.0 or ARM 4.1! I don't know the Red Hat policies for libraries. But we should not encourage users of ARM to link statically! Any comments? Regards, Stefan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472848] Review Request: jeuclid-core - MathML rendering solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #5 from Brennan Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 15:01:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Good, but you should post the link to the updated spec file and src.rpm after > you've made the changes (also increase the Release: tag and describe your > changes in %changelog). Fixed. > > You still haven't addressed this: > jeuclid-core.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/jeuclid-core-3.1.3/NOTICE > > It is admittedly minor, but please fix that by converting the file using tr, > sed or perl in %prep. Remember to preserve the original file's timestamp using > touch. Done. SRPM: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core-3.1.3-3.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472683] Review Request: jpcap - Packet capturing library for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472683 Patrick Dignan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472676] Review Request: partimage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472676 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 14:37:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > >> Therefore, my pam rules are not working the way I wanted, > >> but I do not know how to fix them ... > >> For now, only local users can authenticate. > >> > >> Any suggestion? Do you know how pam works? > > > Not sure. Is this something you're adding on, or functionality of the > > original > > code? > > I borrowed the idea from Gentoo and Ubuntu. They created this script so people > do not need to have a local account on the server. By what I have read about > Pam, it can use this scheme. > > # partimaged user database > auth sufficient pam_userdb.so db=/etc/partimaged/passwd > > But I always get a "password mismatch". I'm not sure I like the security implications of this. This would mean that if you run partimage-server on your network, anyone on your network with a Fedora LiveCD with this installed can dump images on your server. > > I added a README.Fedora.html (I chose html, because it has some useful links). Good idea. But rename to partimage.README.html to avoid use of the word Fedora and SRPM clobbering. > I have updated the release: > > Spec: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/SPECS/partimage.spec > > SRPM: http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/src/partimage-0.6.7-3.fc8.src.rpm Also, for partimaged-certs.cnf, you should mention in the README that this file should be customized. Not everyone is in Rio. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473077] [RFE] Add package Equalizer - Parallel Rendering Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473077 Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||t.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Component|new |Package Review AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |.org| --- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 14:37:50 EDT --- Are you volunteering to maintain the package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473046] Review Request: miniupnpc - command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473046 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 13:40:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > OK, I'll change that. But just be aware that I copied this Source0 line format > from the official Fedora rdesktop spec file. The rdesktop spec file is not reviewed so far. The 'Merge Review' is pending. Your Source0 is acceptable if there is no source code available from a online/upstream location or only out of a VCS. But in this case it has to be documented in the spec file. Basically all source must come from upstream. > Before I send a new version, I need some guidance with the group. The spec > file > I used as a base had "User Interface/Desktops" but this is not the case for > this package. > Where I can find a list of valid groups ? less /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS > BTW, this FE-NEEDSPONSOR tag is documented somewhere? I couldn't find a single > line in the documentation about it. I would like to update the documentation > to > include that, after this package is accepted. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Create_Your_Review_Request -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 13:30:35 EDT --- Changed optimization memory limit, path preference and summary. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/open64.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/open64-4.2-6.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462163] Review Request: checkdns - A Domain Name Server analysis and reporting tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462163
--- Comment #13 from John Guthrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 13:21:31 EDT
---
I have just uploaded new versions of the spec file and srpm that should satisfy
all of your concerns:
Spec URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f9/checkdns.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f9/checkdns-0.5-6.fc9.src.rpm
- License tag should be fixed
- I have adjusted ownership and permissions of stuff in /var/www/html
- %{optflags} is now being used
- I have installed a cron file
Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226317] Merge Review: procinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226317 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 13:15:45 EDT --- Those tools are definitely missing in the new version. I'm thinking that perhaps placing lsdev and socklist in separate packages to obtained the functionality could be an option. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471829] Review Request: log4cxx - Log4cxx - a port to C++ of the Log4j project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471829 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 11:50:09 EDT --- Dude, there are seven hundred pending package review tickets. Please be patient. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473046] Review Request: miniupnpc - command line tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers as Linksys, D-Link etc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473046 Avi Alkalay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 --- Comment #5 from Avi Alkalay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 11:40:39 EDT --- OK, I'll change that. But just be aware that I copied this Source0 line format from the official Fedora rdesktop spec file. Before I send a new version, I need some guidance with the group. The spec file I used as a base had "User Interface/Desktops" but this is not the case for this package. Where I can find a list of valid groups ? BTW, this FE-NEEDSPONSOR tag is documented somewhere? I couldn't find a single line in the documentation about it. I would like to update the documentation to include that, after this package is accepted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450164] Review Request: ace-tao - The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) and The ACE ORB (TAO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450164 Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #23 from Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 11:15:49 EDT --- Hmmm, Debian's copyright file: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/ace/ace_5.6.3-5/libace-5.6.3.copyright lists more stuff under non-Free Sun licenses. :-( I don't know how this passed debian-legal, as those licenses are clearly non-Free and blatantly spelled out in the copyright file. :-/ As you can see in the Debian copyright file, some of the core IIOP files carry this notice: > You may copy, modify, distribute, or sublicense the LICENSED PRODUCT > without charge as part of a product or software program developed by > you, so long as you preserve the functionality of interoperating with > the Object Management Group's "Internet Inter-ORB Protocol" version > one. However, any uses other than the foregoing uses shall require > the express written consent of Sun Microsystems, Inc. which is clearly non-Free (because it bans using the software to implement a different protocol). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472664] Review Request: perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple - Easy to use HTML::TokeParser interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472664 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 09:33:54 EDT --- perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple-3.15-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple-3.15-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472666] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Natural - Create machine readable date/time with natural parsing logic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472666 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 09:32:42 EDT --- perl-DateTime-Format-Natural-0.73-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DateTime-Format-Natural-0.73-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472666] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Natural - Create machine readable date/time with natural parsing logic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472666 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 09:32:46 EDT --- perl-DateTime-Format-Natural-0.73-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DateTime-Format-Natural-0.73-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472664] Review Request: perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple - Easy to use HTML::TokeParser interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472664 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 09:33:50 EDT --- perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple-3.15-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-HTML-TokeParser-Simple-3.15-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
